The Constitution and Punitive Damages: Does Due Process Require the Definition of Degrees of Culpability
![handle is hein.journals/capulr18 and id is 555 raw text is: THE CONSTITUTION AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES: DOES DUE PROCESS
REQUIRE THE DEFINITION OF DEGREES OF CULPABILITY?
I. INTRODUCTION
The United States Supreme Court has never considered whether
punitive damages violate the due process clauses of the fifth' and
fourteenth2 amendments of the Constitution, although numerous deci-
sions may be found where the Court has, in dicta, endorsed the principle
of punitive damages. This dicta includes the statement that the Constitu-
tion provides no general bar to the imposition of punitive damages.3
Nonetheless, a due process challenge to the imposition of punitive
damages has never been given a full hearing and determination. Because
of this, the assertion that due process is violated by the imposition of
punitive damages continues to rise phoenix-like4 as a theme within
American law. Recently, the Court has indicated a willingness to exam-
ine specific cases imposing punitive damages for constitutional flaws.
The first such indication came in Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Lavoie,5
where the Court noted that challenges to the constitutionality of puni-
tive damages under either the eighth or fourteenth amendments
raise[d] important issues, which in an appropriate setting, must be
resolved.'6
The second case presenting a constitutional challenge to punitive
damages was Bankers Life and Casualty Co. v. Crenshaw,7 which rose to
the United States Supreme Court from the Supreme Court of Missis-
sippi. Bankers Life argued that the imposition of a 1.6 million dollar
punitive damage award for a bad faith refusal to pay an insurance
claim of $20,000 violated both the eighth amendment excessive fines
clause and the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment.9
1. U.S. CONST. amend. V (No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law...
2. U.S. CONST. amend XIV.
3. Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 159 (1967).
4. The phrase is borrowed with gratitude from Note, In Defense of Punitive
Damages, 55 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 303, 331 (1980).
5. 475 U.S. 813 (1986).
6. Id. at 828 - 29.
7. 108 S. Ct. 1645 (1988).
8. 483 So. 2d 254 (Miss. 1985).
9. Bankers Life, 108 S. Ct. 1645, at 1649. Bankers Life also asserted that the award
of punitive damages against it violated the contract clause of the constitution. The Supreme
Court determined that these claims were neither raised nor passed on in the Mississippi
Supreme Court, and thus declined to reach them.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/capulr18&div=40&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
The Constitution and Punitive Damages: Does Due Process Require the Definition of Degrees of Culpability
The Constitution and Punitive Damages: Does Due Process Require the Definition of Degrees of Culpability